Twice denounced by writers at National Review Online, methinks that this blog is breaking out. And many gracious thanks to James Fulford and Patrick Cleburne for their vigorous defense. A House Minor is always appreciative of assistance from a Great House. [VDARE.com note: This Kanly stuff is a metaphor, and for the humorless SPLC types, no more involves actual fighting thatn it does giant sandworms. ]

Honor, though, demands satisfaction and that will be addressing again the issue of support for illegal immigration among so-called conservatives, specifically the Kremlinology like need to parse the sentences of some conservatives as one must similarly do with a Billy-Jeff Bentpecker statement:

There is nothing like writing about illegal immigrants to bring out the rubes. Some coward hiding behind a pseudonym, to whom I will decline to link, writes:

National Review has surrendered to the radical left and is slowly adopting the Obama Regime Administrative Amnesty. It all centers around the ratchet effect, abject surrender, and much ignorance on immigration law.

NRO’s resident illegal alien Kevin Williamson, while officially claiming to be “agnostic” on the in-state tuition for illegal aliens, Rick Perry’s DREAM Act assistance to illegal aliens, in fact is a big supporter of illegal aliens, and always looking for a reason not to enforce immigration laws or build fences. Perhaps that would keep out too many illegals, like himself.

If you think Rick Perry represents the “radical left,” you are politically illiterate. There isn’t much more to say about that.

Except that in-state tuition for illegal aliens is one of the major issues for the radical left.

And I am, in truth, agnostic about the tuition question: If Texas runs a cost-benefit analysis and comes up with one answer, and Arizona does the same and comes up with another, both are acceptable to me. The question of how we deal with our undefended border and what we do about the millions of illegals already here is not going to be decided by how the University of Texas calculates tuition for less than 1 percent of its students.

Wrong. Texas has no cost-benefit analysis to run. The Congress of the United States makes immigration policy. Illegal aliens may not remain in the United States, and may not remain in Texas. That is the only analysis to run. Texas may not aid, abet and assist illegal aliens to remain in the United States. See Title 8 United States Code Section 1324, Bringing and Harboring Illegal Aliens. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution does not give Texas room for a cost-benefit analysis about illegal aliens. It may, however, like Arizona, assist the Federal government in running down illegal aliens and bringing them to justice. It may also chose not to assist. That is the only cost-benefit analysis open to Texas. Spend money to arrest illegal aliens and open up the jobs they hold to Texas residents. Texas and Rick Perry have chosen not to do this cost-benefit analysis.

But, in any event, Texas did not run a cost-benefit analysis, it just decided to assist illegal aliens in remaining. There is no benefit to Texas, because these Texas DREAMers, despite their degrees from Texas tax-payer supported universities, may still not work in the United States. They may not work for Dell, Whole Foods, or any other employer. That is prohibited by Title 8 USC 1324A, Unlawful Employment of Aliens.

The critic quotes above makes a lot of hay out of the fact that he thinks I am an illegal immigrant. This is a case study in the danger of writing before you know what you are talking about. I am not, of course, an illegal alien, having been by the grace of God born and raised in West Texas, which our friend would have known if he were at all familiar with my work or had bothered to do 30 seconds worth of fact-checking. (I was an illegal in India while working there, because public corruption and vast bureaucratic inertia would have made it all but impossible for me to do the work I was there to do, and so I became the principal of a U.S.-based “consulting agency,” which had no papers of incorporation, or address, or employees, or bank account, or clients, being an entirely fictional device, an episode I have referred to from time to time as my days as an illegal aliens, which is what I was.)

Well, partner, I took you at your word. Pretty simple. Do I have to research every statement you make to see if it is misleading? Hardly the position a respectable reporter and commentator should take. "Don't trust a word I say. I might be misleading you. Better you read my bio before you take anything I say as the truth."

I will admit I thought he had weaseled his way into a green card many years ago, much like Arnold Schwartzenkennedy, who also had a period of illegality in the U.S. And look what he did for California. But then I took Williamson at his word. I certainly won't make that mistake again.

Am I opposed to building a fence? Here’s what I wrote about Perry’s opposition to a fence: “Governor Perry is wrong about building a border fence — the logistical challenges are significant, but they are not insurmountable.” I also suggested that we “establish a border zone with an inland barrier, with the understanding that there’s going to be some zig-zagging involved.” That should not be too difficult for a competent reader of the English language to decode, provided he is not a complete buffoon.

Hey, I resemble those remarks. But more on the fence below.

I would like to see a proper border fence built, and I would very much like to see expedited deportations, starting with those illegals already in custody for criminal offenses. Texas and other border states are faced with making difficult decisions about how best to handle their large illegal populations precisely because Washington fails and fails and fails to do its job, as Perry has pointedly reminded the federal authorities at every opportunity.

And rewarding the illegal aliens that remain with in-state tuition is a solution to the failure of the Federal government? No, rewarding illegal aliens with in-state tuition is a political calculation for the Hispanic vote, for driving down wages of housekeepers and restaurant workers, two of the few occupations that will be open to illegal alien graduates of Texas universities. Certainly Dell will not be hiring any of the Texas DREAM Act illegal aliens.

If Perry were really concerned about Federal failure to secure the borders, he would have gone the Arizona or Alabama way. Mandate E-Verify, prohibit illegal aliens from attending Texas' state supported universities, authorize Texas law enforcement officer to make probable cause arrests of illegal aliens, mandate reporting of illegal aliens encountered by State and local officialsto DHS, and mandate use in Texas of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system in all welfare agencies. That would be dealing with the problem created by the Federal government. Making a problem worse is not dealing with the problem.

A remark in the comments section was typical: “Illegal aliens who are known to be illegal should be immediately deported. Period.” Another read: “These people are here in violation of our laws. The rate of their tuition is not even an issue. They should be expelled.” All true enough.

But Rick Perry is not the governor of Utopia; he’s the governor of a real place, with real-world problems. He hasn’t spent the last decade engaged in theoretical refinement and maximalist ideological posturing; he’s had to govern a big, complex state, the problems of which do not always fit into neat ideological categories. So while it’s fine to have your blog temper tantrum and scream “We ought to deport all of ’em!” — and I agree — the fact remains: We aren’t deporting them: Washington won’t, Texas can’t. That’s the reality. Now what? Governors and presidents have to answer that question; cranks with blogs (or cranks with think tanks or House seats) don’t.

Ah, the typical leftist argument. The world is too complex for those simpleton solutions from the right. Can't we all just get along? What New Age claptrap. Now what? Well, how about start by vetoing benefits for illegal aliens? When you subsidize something, you get more of it. So the reality is to stop digging the hole you are in. The reality would be to instead prohibit illegal aliens from enrolling in Texas universities if the Federal government won't arrest the same illegal aliens. The solution is for Perry to speak publicly about the impact of illegal immigration. The solution is for Perry to order the Texas Rangers, highway patrol officers, and State welfare fraud investigators to take illegal aliens into custody, the solution is to present the Texas legislature with an anti-smuggling law as in Arizona that Sheriff Joe Arpaio is using to arrest illegal aliens on State charges.

Rick Perry and Kevin Williamson are complaining about illegal immigration, but doing nothing about it. How about Rick Perry making a case to the American people that Obama's Administrative Amnesty is an impeachable offense? How about Williamson point that out in a column? But he won't because deep down Williamson supports illegal immigration, perhaps because he acknowledges the problem of lack of black participation in the work force and we need people to do the jobs that they won't, and that, of course, is Hispanic immigrants, illegal and legal. Perhaps Williamson just wants to drive down wages to benefit employers like Chipotle's. It is clear that Rick Perry, who did nothing of consequence to advance anti-sanctuary legislation in the Texas legislature this session, does not want illegal aliens removed from Texas. He wants illegal aliens in Texas universities, so when they graduate they can go to work at companies like Chuy's, the French Gourmet, or S&S Bakery.

When I wrote that there are logistical challenges to fencing the Texas-Mexico border, I meant a thousand miles of this:

[Ed. Note: See the link for the photo. I still can't manage the image part of blogging.]

Fencing the actual Texas-Mexico border is impractical, since the border is in the middle of a river. But I do think it would be possible to establish a border zone with an inland barrier, with the understanding that there’s going to be some zig-zagging involved.

If you have been a very, very good rattlesnake, this is where you go when you die.

Hardy, har, har. That was funny. Build a fence where it is so barren those bad old rattlesnakes go there to die. That shows one's enthusiasm for the fence. And aren't those rubes stupid. They think we should build a fence in the middle of a river.

Parse those words and what you end up with someone who's commitment to enforcement is a tad, as they say, wet. Referring not to those who cross the river illegally, but the Tory wets who opposed Thatcher. Those who were unenthusiastic about her reforms.

More importantly the Texas-Mexico border is not thousands of miles long, nor is the 1,969 mile long U.S.-Mexico border only along such badlands. Most though desert, is easily built on. Most is flatland in Arizona, New Mexico and California, as well as Texas. In fact, the issue in Texas is eminent domain, as much of the border is farm and ranch land. So building as close to the Rio Grande is very important. But it certainly ain't building on Mars.

There we have it. Neither Rick Perry or his apologist Kevin Williamson are serious about illegal immigration. They both are are either all wet or "agnostic" on encouraging illegal immigration. Perry encourages illegals to come to Texas and obtain benefits such as in-state tuition, and opposes every measure that would reduce illegal immigration, such as the border fence and E-Verify.

Perry can ostentatiously send Texas Rangers to the border and lambaste the federal government’s failures, but none of it matters if it’s relatively easy for illegals to find a job. Another border state, Arizona, implemented the E-Verify system requiring employers to check the immigration status of prospective employees. It led to a dramatic reduction in the population of illegals, many of whom have, no doubt, decamped to Texas. So long as he doesn’t implement E-Verify, Perry is shooting holes in the hull of the U.S.S. Enforcement and demanding that the feds bail faster.

D'oh! That was Rich Lowry, a crank with a blog, not living in the real world and maximizing his ideological posturing. Good ideological company for this blog at least.